"The truth that makes men free is for the most
part the truth which men prefer not to hear."

Herbert Agar

Sunday, 5 June 2011

Whatever you do, don't mention the war!

Originally sent April 2010

It’s election time and the silly season is upon us again.

The Labour Party manifesto was launched under the title “A future fair for all”,which is I suppose a better prospect than the current circus for all. The Conservatives issued an “Invitation to Join the Government of Britain”. It’s falling apart and needs joining, but who is the government of Britain, and will we get expenses for trips to Washington or Brussels? The Liberal Democrats want a “Change that Works for You”,which curiously changes its meaning when you read it back to them. It seems that they all have one policy in common: Don’t mention the war.

In my three ‘election specials’ I advocated tapping into a range of issues of concern which directly or indirectly have arisen post-9/11. I circulated a letter which I had written to my own candidates asking whether they would commit to inquiries into CCTV, 7/7, the Afghan War and the collapse of language-learning in our schools, all of which are likely to relate to 9/11 and the expansionist designs of our hidden government.

Following that, however, I came across information which made me think that it might be best now to go for the jugular: 9/11 and the origins of the Afghan war.

The gist of it was that some NATO states, had counted on public apathy about Afghanistan to increase their contributions to the mission, but that indifference “might turn into active hostility if spring and summer fighting result in an upsurge in military or Afghan civilian casualties and if Dutch-style debate spills over into other states contributing troops”. They were particularly worried about the positions of France and Germany, which were due for elections. Much of the report was concerned with “tailoring the messaging” in order to forestall or at least contain backlash. So now we know: the “Don’t mention the war” policy was being encouraged by the CIA. The putting out of diversionary messages to gain compliance of the publics was being encouraged by the CIA, too. It would be surprising if such tactics were not being applied in the UK now, during the present general election campaign.

We have been at war in Afghanistan for over eight years. So far, 281 body bags have been brought home. The war is believed to have cost £12bn so far(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/revealed-16312bn-hidden-costs-of-afghan-war-1761469.html), and it is highly unpopular, with an opinion poll taken in February reporting that

Yet when I wrote to my parliamentary candidates on this, I received just two replies, and only one, the Green Party candidate, would commit to a public parliamentary inquiry into war. Clearly, those with something to hide would want to avoid a repeat ofthe Chilcott Inquiry into the Iraq War. Such an inquiry into the Afghan War would inevitably touch on the dangerous grounds of the justification of the invasion of Afghanistan. The perceived falsehoods in relation to the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq will have softened public opinion regarding the possibility that the Afghan invasion, too, could have been based on false claims.

But how could the country’s politicians and their national press bemanipulated into such a conspiracy of silence? How can it be that eight and a half years after the attacks of 9/11 we are no nearer to understanding what happened on that fateful day than we were when President Bush declared that he wanted Osama bin Laden dead or alive? How is it that there has been no significant questioning of the role of Osama bin Laden in the mainstream media?

Whatever the mechanics of this, it is a phenomenon observed by George Orwell in 1945. In the unpublished preface to the first edition of Animal Farm he wrote: “The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. … At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is 'not done' to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was 'not done' to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either inthe popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.”

He pointed out that the BBC gave just two percent of its coverage of Iraq to antiwar dissent, and that 90 percent of the BBC’s references to weapons of mass destruction suggested that Saddam Hussein actually possessed them, and that by clear implication Bush and Blair were right.

“We now know”, he continued, “that the BBC and other British media were used by the British secret intelligence service MI-6. In what they called Operation Mass Appeal, MI-6 agents planted stories about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, such as weapons hidden in his palaces and in secret underground bunkers. All of these stories were fake.”

“But that’s not the point”, he added, “The point is that the work of MI-6 was unnecessary, because professional journalism on its own would have produced the same result.” Like George Orwell sixty-two years earlier, he was pointing out that unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. I know there are dangers in speaking out against generally accepted views, propagated by the establishment.

Michael Meacher MP spoke out on 9/11 and announced the showing of the film Loose Change in Parliament. At the last moment that showing was withdrawn without explanation. Afterwards it was revealed that he had phoned up the UK distributer saying that it was too dangerous.

I recently came across a report on the website of the Surrey Advertiser on the inquest into Mark Mockler, a mathematician who had worked for the Ministry of Defence in the missile technology department, and who disappeared in June 2008. His body was later found under bushes in Guildford, and an inquest was held on April 12, 2010, which recorded an open verdict.

But did no-one check out his story on 9/11? That would have been easy to do. Was it just assumed that because he did not accept the government story on 9/11, an orthodoxy which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question, that he was in need of psychiatric medication? If that story is reasonably accurate, then it means that we need some sort of inquiry into psychiatric practice in the UK as well. If it is untrue, then we need a public inquiry into political propaganda by the media.

Even writing these news letters has not been without some pain. Following my newsletter of September 2009, in which I dealt with the hypersensitive issue of 7/7 for the first time, I received some abusive emails, suggesting I was a Nazi sympathiser. So did two colleagues of mine. I was not even vulnerable to such allegations. I simply held my ground and dealt with the issue in general terms in my October Newsletter. We need new leadership in the London 9/11 truth movement.

As horrific as the individual abuses may be, my main concern here is to see the bigger picture; why should people in high places cover up such a network? Would they personally be involved, or could there be other motives, such as intimidation or other implications? Would revealing a high level criminal ring in one activity open up a can of worms in other areas, possibly involving state crime? I was expecting a national story to break on this, but instead a similar story broke concerning the Vatican. We need to understand better how this conspiracy of silence works in our society, and to give encouragement to those who are prepared to go someway in speaking the truth.

As I was writing this, I came across an article in The Independent by Johann Hari under the title ‘The shameful,bloody silence at the heart of the election’. It begins:

At last, the story is starting to break. But even when big lies do start to break, journalists quite freely, and probably unknowingly, repeat other big lies from the complex network of deception. “Al-Qa'ida's attacks don't originate in these ‘bases’, and don't require them: 9/11 was plotted in Hamburg and Florida; 7/7 was planned in Yorkshire” writes Johann Hari. I don’t think so. We don’t know where 9/11 was plotted, but we do know that there were certain people inW ashington who wanted some catastrophic event like Pearl Harbor to give them an excuse for starting a war.

As for 7/7, the terrorists caught a train that didn’t run that day, and unless the CCTV images weremanipulated, a later or an earlier train would have resulted in an impossible journey. He does, however, get to the point, by quoting an Israeli politician assaying: "public opinion does not influence foreign policy in Britain.Foreign policy is an elite issue", and gives a passing reference to the leaked CIA report on European public opinion, in which they say they are "counting on public apathy about Afghanistan" and boast that so far leaders have been "enabled... to ignore voters". Yet we have to rely on foreign leaders to get bits of the truth out on what didn’t happen on 9/11.

but whether that will help influence Western public opinion in favour or against the idea that 9/11 wasn’t as it seemed is a debatable issue. The Western reporting of this isn’t exactly objective. If 64 per cent of Brits believe that the war is unwinnable and should end now, then this is a story waiting to break. We should now go for the jugular: a public inquiry into the origins of the invasion of Afghanistan, including the credibility of the official story of 9/11. To get there, we should be questioning the conspiracy of silence, and bringing attention to it by comments to blogs and newspaper articles, letters to newspapers, talking to friends, and even writing to our parliamentary candidates, who seem so keen on ignoring the issue. Feel free to forward this newsletter to any interested parties. So far, I have received just two replies from my candidates. David Rendell of the Liberal Democrats agrees that all my points are important, but won’t commit to doing anything specific about them. I replied that his party headquarters must be aware of the 9/11 issue, and he agreed to forward my information on to them. Adrian Hollister of the Greens did commit to a public inquiry into all of the issues I raised, except for the language issue, which he promised to brief himself on at a later stage. I hope a lot of people do.

The more we do so, the more politicians will realise that they should mention the war, and why the CIA thinks we shouldn’t mention the war. We should constantly remind them of that.

There’s a lot of cynicism out there. Over half of young people between the ages of 17and 24 haven’t even registered to vote, according to the Electoral Commission. Writing to candidates is out of fashion amongst an increasing percentage of the population who have latched on to the fact that politicians have little say on big issues of state policy. But it’s worth doing, because it’s this sort of activity that in the end influences public opinion. That’s what we’re really targeting.

Like John Cleese, we should now be constantly getting the message to as many people as possible during this election campaign: Don’t mention the war:

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Maiwand Lion

This statue, made of cast iron and weighing 16 tons, is situated in the town of Reading, Berkshire. The inscription reads:

This monument records the names and commemorates the valour and devotion of XI (11) officers and CCCXVIII (318) non-commissioned officers and men of the LXVI (66th) Berkshire Regiment who gave their lives for their country at Girishk Maiwand and Kandahar and during the Afghan Campaign MDCCCLXXIX (1879) - MDCCCLXXX (1880).

"History does not afford any grander or finer instance of gallantry and devotion to Queen and country than that displayed by the LXVI Regiment at the Battle of Maiwand on the XXVII (27th) July MDCCCLXXX (1880)."

Despatch of General Primrose.

Welcome!

This blog has been set up to publish regular newsletters in conjunction with the Berkshire 9/11 Truth website. The newsletters are on current issues as well as offering opinions on media articles both in the UK and abroad.